Interesting IW list indeed and a bit surprised that several names are not on the list. Find it odd how many lat transfers got selected who still do not understand the components of the IW community, yet will now be responsible for impacting the community on a much larger scale. Very few SIGINT savvy folks on this list also, which makes me wonder how our JOs will interpret that as far as choosing their career path. Do not think this board helped the IW community for the long run.

S4L wrote:Interesting IW list indeed and a bit surprised that several names are not on the list. Find it odd how many lat transfers got selected who still do not understand the components of the IW community, yet will now be responsible for impacting the community on a much larger scale. Very few SIGINT savvy folks on this list also, which makes me wonder how our JOs will interpret that as far as choosing their career path. Do not think this board helped the IW community for the long run.

To my knowledge, 7 of these selectees served in CRC positions. It could be more. It doesn't get much more Navy SIGINT than that...

Regarding lat/xfers -- I find it hard to believe that a LCDR lat/xfer, up for CDR, doesn't understand some as basic the "components of the IW community." Can you explain? They are screened/selected just like anyone else in the community -- based on what is in their record.

I do not believe serving as a CRC equates to understanding SIGINT but that is not the point I was making. Plenty of CRCs who know SIGINT and plenty of CRCs who do not. Throw in cyber and now you have even fewer who understand both sides. From my point of view, outside of a handful of names the SIGINT heavy folks are not on the list and only a handful of our top Cyber JO's who actually understand Cyber made it.

The lateral transfer comment is based on my experience before retirement and in my current position where I deal with a decent amount of Navy IW officers. I do not feel the majority have a decent understanding of their craft nor try to learn it. Several projects we are involved in now these lat transfers sit in the room like a statue and defer their decisions to the contracting parties. While that is not bad, as these contractors are retired Navy, it shows clear as day they lack the understanding on what they should be doing.

This is strictly my opinion from what I have witnessed the past few years.

I was surprised at first when I saw the list, but after having a chance to participate in a board because I will not be IZ for at least a year, the process indicates to me that the board is pretty fair. As I move forward, this is just my opinion based on my observations that I've seen in the last few years from the O-4 and O-5 boards, and I also learned a lot from several of the current selectees, their paths and decisions, because we all are in one way or another a "mentor" to each other. There's a point after the first cut that you become a number and no longer a name while sorting out the crunch. However, this recent board could mean that the IZ group may not have been competitive enough.

Some argue the CYBER piece or the SIGINT piece, but I am willing to bet when the Community Manager background stats on the selectees comes out, it will be like previous years, different experiences with some "should have check in the blocks," coupled with good FITREPs, at and above RSA where they need to be. EP and MP mean nothing unless you need to see the progression and break, otherwise, it's about sustained superior performance.

Last year, selectees had their Masters, at least JPME I, and a milestone (CRC, XO, OIC,etc.) and obviously good paper. Cyber is just gaining traction, so I doubt the board used this as a discriminator this early. A STEM Masters does carry some added weight and a sub-specialty that can be useful, etc. and set you up for a Cyber track. I've seen some get selected when the same RS moved them to the left, but not consistent with the rest of the FITREPs. Sometimes reviewers overlook small things like this and may realize that the CO had a grudge because the Officer was injured and could not stand shipboard watch.

I've heard plenty of O-4s complain about why they FOS and they had every check in the block and then some. Well, I would ask, that's all good and everything, but how is your paper? If it's mediocre and stuck in the middle, I only care about half of those checks like Joint progress, Masters, Milestone, and good paper at or above RSA showing rightward progression. I've seen O-4s that had a STEM Masters, JPME I and II w/ JSO, O-4 Milestone and FOS because FITREPs were ok, but not spectacular.

On the flipside, if you have great paper, but no JPME or Masters, at least started, and no milestone, then how can I determine if you can handle the tougher jobs. Timing can be a factor at times, but whether it's a large or very small SUM GRP, if you can perform well in both settings and at a minimum hit the wickets, then the IW voters and URLs folks will see a stronger picture of the varied duties, qualifications, education, FITREPs, etc.

Finally, I do not think most of us will really ever grasp our tradecraft because it is constantly changing. 20+ years ago, you were a SIGINT guru, then we shifted to IO, then we merged into the IDC with some attempts at cross-billeting mainly at the senior leadership level at this time, and now we are Cyber focused, but in the end...it's the performance that counts. Sometimes the selection is easier if some of the voters know you and your work ethic, however; at crunch time when you become only a number, those specific voters see numbers and choose their final cut based on numbers, but do not count on who knows you on the board...influence has some weight, but not the mythical type that some believe exists.

S4L wrote:I do not believe serving as a CRC equates to understanding SIGINT but that is not the point I was making. Plenty of CRCs who know SIGINT and plenty of CRCs who do not. Throw in cyber and now you have even fewer who understand both sides. From my point of view, outside of a handful of names the SIGINT heavy folks are not on the list and only a handful of our top Cyber JO's who actually understand Cyber made it.

The lateral transfer comment is based on my experience before retirement and in my current position where I deal with a decent amount of Navy IW officers. I do not feel the majority have a decent understanding of their craft nor try to learn it. Several projects we are involved in now these lat transfers sit in the room like a statue and defer their decisions to the contracting parties. While that is not bad, as these contractors are retired Navy, it shows clear as day they lack the understanding on what they should be doing.

This is strictly my opinion from what I have witnessed the past few years.

Nothing you are saying is quantitative. It sounds more like there are some specific Officers who weren't on the list that you expected to be. And maybe some Officers who were on the list that you think shouldn't be.

IRT the 8x AZ selections, I also wonder if that could indicate that the FY15 board was particularly competitive and that just because someone was a non-select in that (or any) year is not indicating that they are a below average or even subpar officer.

IRT the 2x BZ selections, I know one very well and one kinda-sorta okay, if someone was going to be selected early both of them exemplify what I think we should be striving for in our profession.

0

Last edited by Mjölnir on Sun May 24, 2015 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

rturcic72 wrote:I've heard plenty of O-4s complain about why they FOS and they had every check in the block and then some. Well, I would ask, that's all good and everything, but how is your paper? If it's mediocre and stuck in the middle, I only care about half of those checks like Joint progress, Masters, Milestone, and good paper at or above RSA showing rightward progression. I've seen O-4s that had a STEM Masters, JPME I and II w/ JSO, O-4 Milestone and FOS because FITREPs were ok, but not spectacular.

Hopefully at this point people are of the impression that checking the box isn't all that is required and that (as you say) how you are performing and how it is getting reported / documented is the much larger part (IMO and based on my observation at an O5 board) of the equation.

0

The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

IRT the 8x AZ selections, I also wonder if that could indicate that the FY15 board was particularly competitive and that just because someone was a non-select in that (or any) year is not indicating that they are a below average or even subpar officer.

IRT the 2x BZ selections, I know one very well and one kinda-sorta okay, if someone was going to be selected early both of them exemplify what I think we should be striving for in our profession.

The reality is that all Officers eligible (IZ, AZ, and BZ) are considered and briefed together. The only categorical limitation for selections is for BZ, so only the top ~2 in that category will be considered. After that all bets are off. The board could actually select everyone from AZ if those Officers were the most eligible. In the end it is the individual versus the convening order. The ones that most closely match the convening order will be selected.